Sometimes we speak in
generalities, and sometimes we speak specifically. We can tell a
story in a way that summarizes the whole, and we can expand on a
portion. I think this is an explanation for the apparent
"two creation stories." In Genesis 1, we see God making
the world in six days. In chapter two, the story of creation is
expanded upon. The purpose of chapter two is not to retell the
whole story, but to expand specifically on the formation of man
and woman, which happened on the sixth day.

You have indicated that Genesis
2:19 says that God made the animals as companions for Adam. If
you read verse 18, you will find that the animals were not made
as companions for Adam, but God is planning on making
"A" companion for Adam. The first part of verse 19, is
a re-statement of chapter 1:24 & 25. It does not mean that
God made them after man. It is merely a matter-of-fact statement
that God created them. He brought them to Adam to name. The
statement in the next verse, "but for Adam there was not
found an help meet for him," indicates the purpose of God
having Adam name the animals. This was a biology lesson for Adam.
Here Adam observes all the animals, and will obviously notice
that for each species there is a male, and a female. Adam will
then notice that there was no female of his own species. It is
only then that God causes Adam to sleep, and then forms the
woman, and brings her to Adam. Adam by now will realize that the
woman is the female counterpart of the male of his species.

Curt Responds:

The above argument hinges on Genesis 2:18, in particular
the fact that the text uses the singular form to refer to Adam's
helper. I feel that this may be stretching the text a little far.
From my reading, the text simply states that Adam needed a
companion, and that God then created all the animals in order to
find such a companion for Adam.

In addition, this argument fails to take into account the
fact that the two Creation purposes are very different in
structure, aim and vocabulary. The second story (which is thought
to be the older story by Old Testament scholars) generally uses
God's personal name, YHVH, to refer to the deity, while the first
story uses only the Hebrew word 'Elohim'. The first story has a
cosmic focus - God creates the Universe (as understood by the
ancients, this consisted of a flat earth surrounded by a tangible
dome of the sky), along with the Sun, Moon and Stars. The second
story is far more concerned with the origin of Man and the
animals - the origin of the universe is not explained.

Sometimes we speak in
generalities, and sometimes we speak specifically. According to
the Genesis story of the flood, Noah did take the animals in by
two's. However, this is a general statement. Most animals went in by two's
but specifically, we
find that a few kinds of animals went in by seven's.
Specifically, only the clean animals entered by seven's. Whatever
is meant by "clean animals" is not indicated. Moses had
not yet given the laws concerning clean and unclean animals, but
perhaps the same criteria would have been used  or perhaps
some other criteria. At any rate, the seventh (un-paired) of the
clean animals was used as a sacrifice when Noah left the ark (see
chapter 8:20).

I see no contradiction in this at
all so how can Gen ch 6:19 be together with Gen 7:2 lets see here
in Gen ch 6:19 God command to Noah was " You are to bring
into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to
keep them alive with you" okay in Genesis 7:2-3 records
God's additional instruction: "Take with you seven of every
kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind
of unclean animal,, a male and its mate, and also seven of every
kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive
throughout the earth. the evidence here is that the seven clean
animals were for sacrificial worship after the Flood had receded
as you will see in Gen ch 8:20 " Then Noah built an altar to
the Lord and, Taking some of all the clean animals and clean
birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. So surely if there
had no been more than two of these clean species, they would have
been extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar.

Curt Responds:

The fact that the text refers to 'clean' animals long
nefore the Law had been given is actually a clue to the origin of
this part of the story. Scholars have long noted that there
appear to be two separate Flood stories combined into one by a
later editor. The stories differ by the number and type of
animals taken onto the Ark, the duration of the Flood, and the
type of bird that Noah sent out from the Ark. If we separate the
two strands, we get two complete stories that are both internally
consistent. (See Richard Friedman's very excellent book 'Who
wrote the Bible' for an in-depth treatment of this
issue).

The inclusion of the 'clean' animals indicates that one of
these stories is the work of the Priestly writer (the 'P' of the
'JEDP' theory).

Chapter 10 of Genesis is merely a
listing of the genealogy of Noah. There is no indication of
timing mentioned in it. All we are told is that when the people
divided off into distinct geographical locations, they went
according to their various languages. We are told in chapter 11
how this division took place, but nowhere are we given any
indication that chapter 11 happened chronologically after chapter
10.

Curt Responds:

This is a plausible point. There is no reason to assume
that Genesis 11 chronologically follows Chapter 10. Scholars
think that Chapter 10 is a part of the 'Generations' book, which
the redactor cut up into several pieces and scattered throughout
the text as prefaces to the stories that were to follow.

The only thing to note is that Chapter 10 divides the
nations according to their lineage from Noah, i.e. according to
the families of Shem, Ham and Japeth. Genesis 11 never mentions
this division, and Genesis 10 seems to indicate that the laguage
split followed family lines, and was not the result of miraculous
intervention.

Isaac was therefore not literally
the only son of Abraham, but was, rather the special son. In this
sense, he was considered the only son. Ishmael, having been born
of the hand-maid was not the son of promise (although there was
also a promise given for Ishmael and his decsendents  Gen
17:20).

Curt Responds:

I thnk the language of Genesis 22 seems to argue against
this point of view. Three times in Genesis 22, God refers to
Isaac as '...thy son, thine only son'. If he had simply meant
'special son', why did he not simply say so and avoid all the
confusion? In addition, the author of the New Testament book of
Hebrews seemed to read this passage as 'only son', because he
refers to Isaac the '...[Abraham's] only begotten son.' (Hebrews
11:17)

I think it is obvious that 2 Sam 21:19 is the result of a
scribe's error. The parallel in 1 Chron. 20:5

...and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of
Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

The scribe who copied down 2 Sam 21:19 missed "Lahmi the
brother of." The scribes were diligent, and from my
understanding destroyed any copies found to have errors in them.
However, here is an example of a copy error that was never
corrected -- possibly, it was smudged in the original, and the
scribe couldn't read it, or possibly, he was just tired, his eyes
skipped to the next line, and then it was never noticed.

This poses a bit of a problem though. We know of this
particular scribal error only because there is a parallel passage
that gives the correct reading. How many other errors are there
that have no parallels? Is there any way to look at a reading and
to know of a surety what possible errors a scribe has made?

Curt responds:

It is true that one of these passages is probably the
result of a scribal error or expansion. However, in my opinion it
is not possible to tell which is correct, and which is in error.
Since the books of Chronicles were written some time after the
books of the Kings, it is possible that the Chronciles reading is
an interpolation, designed to correct the contradiction found in
Kings. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that an interpolater
would insert an actual name into the text, so we are left with a
situation which probably cannot be resolved.

In the light of this, the point about other possible
scribal errors is well made. In addition, this raises some
serious questions about God's ability to preserve his Word. It
seems a little strange to me that, having gone to all the trouble
to produce an inspired text, God would then leave it up to
fallible men to preserve.